Eliot,
I kept reading, because if these things are created they *will*
certainly end up being used as end point identifiers. We have to invent
some multi6 solution quickly to prevent them also being NATted.
Unfortunately, this applies even if they are not created. Before RFC 1918,
lots of sites w
Brian,
There is a major difference between now and 1994. There should be no
hurry for anyone to NAT IPv6. If you're going to NAT IPv6 you might as
well stay on IPv4. What disturbs me most is this rush to fix something
with a solution that would derail or delay other solutions simply
because
Brian,
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I kept reading, because if these things are created they *will*
> certainly end up being used as end point identifiers.
Can you develop why? In the absolute I can find lots of reasons but I
don't see why the identifier/locator solution would prefer using these
